[ILUG] Indian software patents

[Justin Mason]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Yes, neither actually give an idea of what the text really states now.
It's all interpretation so far.

The "per se" comment was referring to the early days of the swpat
directive; Arlene McCarthy and the other pro-swpat people spent a lot of
time briefing all and sundry about how the directive would not "allow
software to be patented per se", with lots of examples about how software
on a piece of hardware is patentable (hence the "embedded software" line
below).

It gradually emerged that their directive text *did* permit pure software
to be patentable, and eventually the EU Commission (iirc) gave up the
pretense and started admitting this.   Hence "pure software unpatentable
per se" means very little, if it gives enough wiggle room for patenters
and the patent office to interpret as they see fit.

- --j.

Frank Duignan writes:
> http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=8096
> Quote:
> 
> 6.       It is proposed to omit the clarification relating to
> patenting of software related inventions introduced by the Ordinance
> as Section 3(k) and 3 (ka). The clarification was objected to on the
> ground that this may give rise to monopoly of multinationals.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=66980
> "The new look patent law takes steps to ensure that available drugs
> don't leave the market and keeps embedded software out of the patent
> ambit. Key provisions that enable recognition of product patents for
> pharmaceuticals and food, in line with committments to the WTO, have
> been accepted,'' the official added.
> 
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:13:09 -0800, Justin Mason <jm at jmason.org> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > 
> > Frank Duignan writes:
> > > Am I reading the latest from www.ffii.org correctly - has India just
> > > rejected software patents?
> > > f
> > 
> > URL?  It looks like a Patents Bill has just passed, but various reports
> > seem to differ on whether software is patentable or not. Judging by the
> > way it refers to "embedded software", I'll bet they've pulled the same "oh
> > but this isn't patenting of software, *per se*" trick there...
> > 
> > "oh yes it is!":
> >   http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200503222001.htm
> > 
> > "oh no it isn't!":
> >   http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_idf980
> > 
> > - --j.
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Exmh CVS
> > 
> > iD8DBQFCQb/EMJF5cimLx9ARAj0qAJ41LOjdc5nvNv+p52HmBtQomI5i/gCfVUIA
> > T9m+lKl13SSk6LDF2t/Jqus> =3Rnv
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > 
> >
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFCQfAIMJF5cimLx9ARAitXAJ9vvLJBHALKzFThuqsUA5J2xW5bNACgp0+Z
TcqOfWSm5Fy/gKeqvwqEThY=
=cbom
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----